Why Sharif agrees to disagree with President Barack Obama?

By Vikas Khanna

Hours after committing in a joint statement with President Barack Obama to take effective action all militant groups, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a U-turn by telling a think tank that he could not be expected to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table "and be asked to kill them at the same time." This was the real Sharif who spoke from his heart!

Sharif knows his weaknesses. He risks his survival if he is forced to take action against the Taliban and other home-grown militant organizations, which have the support of the military leadership. The Pakistani army has invested so much in myriad of terrorist organizations that any action against them would entail serious repercussions back home. Pakistan has been periodically using these organizations to further its own interests, be it in Kashmir or in Afghanistan.

An exasperated US wants to get out of Afghanistan, but it is easier said than done. The Afghanistan crisis has prolonged beyond US expectations. And it has taken a very heavy toll on the US – both financially and militarily. Not only have the Taliban forces recouped and gathered strength, the deadly Islamic State is also spreading its wings in the war-torn country. Therefore, the US is nudging Pakistan to crack down on the militants threatening US interests in Afghanistan while simultaneously encouraging it to open talks with them to find a negotiated political solution.

Sharif is not wrong entirely. One can’t have talks and military crackdown against the Taliban or for that matter against any militant organization simultaneously. Here the US can be faulted for putting a trigger on Sharif’s temple.

Sadly, Afghanistan is showing signs of Iraq where US misadventure has led to the civilian strife after it toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Aware of the mistakes which led to the rise of Islamic State in Iraq, the US has developed second thoughts in withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan sooner. There is every possibility that a wounded Taliban can stage a return once the western forces leave Afghanistan leaving an unstable government with the near impossible task of defending the territory against the powerful insurgents. Therefore, the US is looking for a limited but political role for the Taliban in Afghanistan where the situation does not slip deeper into the abyss of anarchy.

The need of the hour is to go all out against all militant groups active in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These jehadi organizations pose a threat to the entire humanity. The practitioners of death and destruction can’t be brainwashed into joining the mainstream as they are opposed to basic tenets of Islam which does not preach hatred and innocent killing. Until and unless all the militant groups are completely annihilated, the idea of talks at this juncture would not be prudent but counter-productive. But for that to happen, all stakeholders need to be on the same page. Pakistan’s political and military leadership will have to stop playing double games with western forces as they have been doing for the last several decades.

Therefore, the US should goad Pakistan into taking action against all the jehadi elements in its territory. Because most of the attacks in Afghanistan have been planned and executed by Taliban and al-Qaeda militants who slip back into Pakistan to their safe haven after crossing the porous and largely unguarded border.

It is high time for Pakistan to realize that it is playing with fire by creating a proxy of unprofessional soldiers who can always turn their back to it and unleash a reign of terror in their self-goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate, or state, and imposing Sharia law. Pakistani leadership has often cried hoarse that it is also a victim of terrorism. Is somebody else to be blamed for the mess that Pakistan finds itself in? There is no doubt that Pakistan has suffered heavily whenever the home-grown terrorists turned their ire against it. The dastardly massacre of 145 people, mostly children, in a school in Peshawar last December should serve as an eye-opener for Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan-backed militants have caused more deaths and destruction back home than elsewhere.  

Both Pakistan and the United States need to realize that the war against terrorism cannot be won through half-hearted measures. Time is not ripe for a two-pronged strategy to have both military action and peace talks simultaneously. The crisis requires a bold response. All efforts should be made to launch a complete war against militants so as to bring them to their knees. Only then can one compel them to join the negotiating table. Once Pakistan withdraws its support from militant groups, they will have nowhere to run. If Pakistan has to survive and escape the ignominy of being dubbed as a rogue state, it will have to change its definition of good militants and bad militants. Militants are militants and there should not be any political truck with them. Period!

AFTER IRAQ, PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NEXT HEADACHE -- AFGHANISTAN

By Vikas Khanna 

  

President Barrack Obama might have taken a high moral ground in announcing the delay in pulling out his forces from Afghanistan, but did he have any other option? Ironically, he will pass on the Afghanistan war to his successor what he inherited from his predecessor George W. Bush. President Obama today finds himself in a quagmire from where it would be very difficult for him to come out unscathed. Retaining the troops beyond his administration’s previously announced deadline for complete withdrawal does not appear to be a tactical shift in policy but the abject helplessness of the US. Its military policy has failed completely in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is proving to be endless.

  

The grim reality is that the war-torn country is not yet ready to defend itself on its own. The early pullout of forces would have been self-defeating for the US which has invested so much in Afghanistan. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US approximately 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. And the job is not yet finished.

The Taliban’s brazen attempt to capture Kunduz last month highlights the vulnerability of the country falling into the hands of insurgents if the western forces leave stock, barrel and lock. That the Taliban insurgents could hold on to the city for a week before being pushed away by Afghan security forces with support from the US troops is a matter of concern. It shows that the progress made in the last 14 years since the US-led NATO forces dethroned the then Taliban government can easily be thwarted. The security situation in the country is still fragile and it has worsened in some pockets. Subsequent to President Obama’s announcement, NATO, too, has decided not to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.

In fact, a recent United Nations report has said that the security situation in Afghanistan remains volatile, as civilian casualties are on the rise and the peace process between the Afghan government and the Taliban is quite shaky. Despite some security gains last year, the UN recorded 22,051 security incidents in 2014, which surpassed those of 2013 by 10 percent. Of those incidents, 68 percent were recorded in southern, southeastern and eastern regions, with Nangarhar province being the most volatile and recording 13 percent of the incidents. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has also expressed concern over the rise in civilian deaths in the South Asian nation. It documented over 10,000 civilian casualties in 2014, the highest annual number of civilian casualties recorded since the UN body began systematic monitoring in 2009.

The recent surge in violence is a cause for concern in the backdrop of looming Islamic State threat in Afghanistan. The principal security challenges from various insurgent groups remain. The Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, the armed faction of Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan affiliates are all active and have not been defanged. Therefore, it would be naïve to imagine that Afghan forces can secure Afghanistan without outside help.

The decision by President Obama to keep at least 9,800 troops in the Central Asian nation through most of 2016, with at least 5,500 of them till the end of next year, must reassure Afghan leadership that the US is not walking away from the situation that remains uncertain. But can the US afford to keep its forces forever? There is need to find a permanent solution. All stakeholders must ensure that Afghanistan is not used as safe haven for terrorists to launch attacks.

Here in comes the dubious role of Pakistan in the region which has been sheltering terrorists in its backyard. It is an open secret that Pakistan does not want a stable government in Afghanistan. In fact, Pakistan was one of the very few countries to recognize the illegitimate rule of Taliban. Afghans are equally wary of Pakistan. Only recently did Afghan President Ashraf Ghani accuse Pakistan of wavering in its cooperation in the peace talks. It should be recalled that despite the first round of successful peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban which was hosted by Pakistan, there has not been any forward movement. Complexities have arisen since the announcement of the death of longtime leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Taliban’s new leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour does not command support of all the factions. The resurgence of Islamic State with backing from some factions of Taliban bodes ill for Afghanistan.

It is hard to believe that Pakistan will change its Afghan policy because both the military and civilian establishments consider the Taliban as an important ally in their scheme of things to counter Indian presence in Afghanistan. While India has been involved in rebuilding of Afghanistan, earning goodwill of the locals, Pakistan has been contributing to the country’s destruction by supporting the Taliban.

President Obama should find meaningful and political ways to end the war. He should use his planned meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif today by talking tough with him. Pakistan should be told in no uncertain terms that it can’t take the international community for a ride by pocketing billions of dollars in international aid and supporting the Taliban simultaneously. Pakistan needs to answer. It should match its words with action.

DEMOCRACY BLACKENED

By Vikas Khanna

It is a black day for India. Being a true Indian, my head hangs in shame. A bunch of lumpen elements has not only blackened the face of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ideolog

ue Sudheendra Kulkarni, but the soul of India. Is hosting a book launch of Pakistan’s former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri such a sacrilegious act that Kulkarni should be publicly abused and humiliated? Every true Indian should stand up against such forces which are out to destroy the social fabric of the country.

What’s more shocking is the comment made by Shiv Sena spokesman Sanjay Raut? If this is a "soft" attack then will Mr. Raut enlighten us by explaining what does he mean by "hard" or "strong" attack? In a way, he has issued a veiled threat to Kulkarni and the like-minded forces. The Sena says that it opposes any engagement with Pakistan as long as it supports terror. Will it then dare to blacken the face of Prime Minister Narendra Modi also who invited his Pakistani counterpart to New Delhi for his swearing-in and later held talks with him in the Russian city of Ufa? Was Pakistan not supporting the terror then? What do you say, Mr. Raut?

Mr. Raut will do well to remember that Pakistan has been fomenting trouble in India since eighties. It uses terrorism as an effective tool to bleed India. In fact, the entire world knows about it. It will be naive to believe that Pakistan on its own would stop sponsoring terror. India will need to talk to Pakistan and exert international pressure on it. The three wars that we fought have not brought about any change in Pakistan’s mindset. There is no other option but to talk to our neighbour, no matter, how does it behave. As the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee rightly said that "you can change friends, not neighbours".

October 12 would go down in the history of India as one of the blackest Mondays. This comes barely days after Shiv Sena activists forced cancellation of the concerts of ghazal maestro Ghulam Ali, who has huge fan following not only in Pakistan and India, but across the world. Such acts do not make us proud but belittle us. For, art and music know no boundaries. Glad that Bapu is not alive to see the denigration of India for whose freedom he fought his entire life. Wonder, would we have been better off under the British! For, our freedom fighters did not struggle for an independent India where intolerance and religious hatred would become the order of the day.

Of late, the attacks against writers and scholars have increased because they believed that they could practice free speech in the independent India. How wrong were they? In 2013, Narendra Dabhokar had to pay a heavy price for campaigning against religious superstitions. He was murdered. Early this year in February, communist leader Govind Pansare was killed. And in August, the 77-year-old M. M. Kalburgi, who was against Hindu idol worship, was gunned down. Where are we headed to? Why can’t there be room for different viewpoints in a pluralistic society? Sadly, the State has failed in its responsibility to protect the society from these fundamentalist forces who want to implement their own agenda, akin the Taliban. The increasing Talibanisation of Indian culture has forced several writers to return their Sahitya Akademi awards and the number is increasing by the day. But the State is unperturbed!

Why have the voices of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Shiv Sena and Ram Sena alike, not to speak of controversial sadhus and sadhvis, become shriller since the present government assumed office? Why have attacks on minorities increased? Why were the comments made by some of these practitioners of hatred politics in the wake of Dadri incident not censored? WHY?

While the government of the day talks about economic reforms, development, Make in India and what not, then why can’t it rein in its ministers or parties with whom it shares power who/which do loose talk? Can we dream of a modern India where one does not have the freedom to speak, can’t eat what one feels like or can’t dress the way one is comfortable with? If this is the concept of modern India, then god help us?

The United Nations has taken note of attacks on minorities? US President Barack Obama ticked off India during his last visit to New Delhi. But the government has maintained a studied silence; forget about reining in such fringe elements. Should then it be construed that such forces have the tacit approval of the powers that be? Welcome to the new India!

DEVELOPMENT? MY FOOT. BIHAR TO VOTE ON CASTE AND COMMUNAL LINES

By Vikas Khanna

Bihar does not understand the language of development. And our politicos understand it much better. With the first of the five-phase elections kicking off from Monday, the die has been cast. It’s the caste which matters the most, it is the communal strife which is the right recipe for winning elections. And pepper it up with dirty politics by calling names and you have the right concoction. It’s the time-tested experiment which has rarely gone wrong. So, why to experiment with something called DEVELOPMENT?

Which is why major political parties have junked the development theme to return to “safe” politics over cow and caste? A poor Muslim elderly man is killed on rumours of cow slaughter in Dadri and it becomes a dominating political issue in Bihar. Suddenly, the political parties, which were talking about changing the fortunes of Bihar by implementing their ideas of development, see in it a golden opportunity and they latch on to it with both hands. The discourse now changes to dietary habits of the communities. Cow slaughter, which is already banned in several states, returns to the fore. The fire, which started in Bishada in Dadri, has now reached Mainpuri in Uttar Pradesh. And we have representatives of political parties resorting to slug-fest over the issue.  

At a time when the caste conundrum was proving to be a jigsaw puzzle with so many parties chasing different castes, the beef row has succeeded in creating a divide. Battle lines have been drawn. Its either us or them! With two main alliances running neck and neck, the issue may prove to be a game changer.

It’s a high-octane match, the verdict of which would make or mar political fortunes of several political parties.

The BJP badly needs a victory. It has never succeeded in breaching the citadel built assiduously first by the Congress party and then by regional parties riding on the success of Mandal politics. The then Janata Dal’s Lalu Prasad Yadav was the first to breach the fortress when he dethroned the Congress-led government in 1990 by promising empowerment to the marginalized castes of the society. The 15-year tenure of Lalu Prasad and his illiterate wife Rabri Devi before he was convicted in a folder scam saw his party’s complete stranglehold on backward and other backward castes of the state which stood behind him like rock solid. But these 15 years were marked by complete lawlessness with the state slipping to abysmal low on all developmental parameters.

The year 2005 proved to be a watershed moment for Bihar. Lalu’s staunch opponent Nitish Kumar joined hands with the BJP to oust the government of RJD which had by then become infamous for its notoriety. Development was a huge casualty and rampant ransoms had taken the shape of an industry. The first term of Kumar’s Janata Dal (United)-BJP combine was a welcome relief as the government launched a crackdown on criminals and restored the confidence of investors and traders. The creaky infrastructure was replaced with better concrete roads and the real estate sector witnessed a boom. A semblance of normalcy started returning to the state, which began clocking double-digit growth. His government was returned to power again in 2015 as caste politics took a back seat and development became the buzz word. But the second term also witnessed deepening of fissures between the two parties as it became evident that the BJP had decided to anoint Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 general elections. The divorce finally happened in 2013. What was an act of opportunism turned out to be a waterloo for Nitish Kumar who was handed a humiliating defeat in the general elections? His party’s tally was reduced to two as against 20 in the previous Lok Sabha elections.

Surprisingly, Kumar had no qualms in sharing power with BJP for eight years till 2013 even though the Gujarat riots had happened in 2002. Or he pretended to believe that Modi and BJP were two different sides of the coin!

Circa 2015 and the same Kumar who had vociferously run down Lalu in the previous elections decided to join hands with his staunchest political rival to stop the juggernaut of Modi-led BJP. Sounds bizarre! The alliance was more to do with the caste arithmetic as political survival of both the leaders was at stake. The two decided to cast their net wider by forming a grand alliance by reaching out to several smaller caste-based parties and supported by the Congress party.

The formation of grand alliance did upset the BJP which also went on an over drive to pander to smaller parties left out by the socialist alliance. Not only did the BJP succeed in getting Jitan Ram Manjhi in its fold, it played a crucial role in forcing Mulayam Singh Yadav to ditch the Janata Parivar and to contest on all seats to play a spoiler. Mulayam’s Samajwadi Party being a small fish in the ocean has no big chances for itself but it certainly can damage the prospects of several candidates of grand alliance by cutting into their votes. Any guesses for Mulayam’s somersault!

The electioneering is also marked by degradation of the standard of discourse in public life by leaders resorting to hitting their opponents below the belt by calling them by various names. What was started by leaders panning the acronym of the parties with double entendre was soon replaced with loose talk and gutter language. It was all well and within limits when RJD was dubbed as “Rojana Jungle Raj Ka Dar” or JD(U) being called “Janata ka Daman aur Utpidan” or Nitish Kumar taking potshots at BJP by calling it “Badka Jhutha Party”.

But the political sneering plunged to its lowest when Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a “DNA” remark on Nitish Kumar. All hell has broken loose since then. BJP president Amit Shah’s “Chara-chor” (fodder eater), comment against Lalu was met with “Narbhakshi” (man-eater) retort by the latter. Lalu’s wife Rabri Devi also joined the fray by calling Amit Shah as “Jallad” (executioner). The list is endless with leaders also delving into mythological characters and likening rivals to Dhritrashtra, Duryodhan, Vibhishan and Putana.

So, who would the voters vote for? No party has a blueprint for the development of Bihar. None has bothered to come out with a vision document. The voters are more confused than ever. It remains to be seen which alliance will make the most of this confusion and come out trumps.